RUSSEL RAJ AND ORS Vs. KRISHNAMONY AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the fair and decreetal order passed in I.A. No. 459 of 2015 in O.S. No. 168 of 2011 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif Court, Kuzhithurai, dated 02.11.2015. The revision petitioners are the plaintiffs. The respondents are the defendants. The petitioners filed O.S. No. 168 of 2011 for permanent injunction restraining the first respondent from interfering with the affairs of Nattalam Arulmigu Sankaranarayanar Thirukovil and from disturbing any of its Poojas and functions to be performed during Pankuni Thiruvizha or on any other occasions. Subsequently, the respondents 2 to 4 were impleaded as defendants. The fifth respondent got himself impleaded as fifth defendant.

(2.) The respondents filed written statement and contested the suit. The petitioners and respondents have let in evidence and the suit was posted for arguments. At that stage, the petitioners filed I.A. No. 458 of 2015 and I.A. No. 459 of 2015 to reopen the suit and seeking leave to institute the suit as representative of worshippers of temple, respectively. The respondents resisted the same and submitted that the applications are belated one and the HR and CE Department is only dealing with the affairs of the temple. The written statement has been filed as early as on 04.04.2014. The petitioners and respondents have let in evidence and the suit was posted for arguments on 09.04.2015. After taking seven adjournments, the petitioners have filed I.A. Nos. 458 and 459 of 2015 to reopen the suit and seeking leave to institute the suit as representative of worshippers of temple. Hence, the learned Trial Judge, after considering the facts of case dismissed the Interlocutory Applications. Against the order passed in I.A. No. 459 of 2015, the present revision has been filed.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that that the application under Order 1 Rule 8 of CPC could be filed at any stage of the suit for the relief sought for by the petitioners in the suit. The judgment relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case and therefore, the learned Judge ought to have allowed the applications. Further, the learned counsel has relied on the following Judgments:--